Not So Happy New Year: Barr And The CIA Revisited

I've spent the last 24 hours or so pondering an article that appeared yesterday:

Barr Points to the True Culprit—Comey’s FBI Team

Attorney General William Barr’s statement exculpating the CIA, rather than disappointing, is in fact hopeful for all who treasure equal justice for both sides of the political fence.

The article is by a former federal prosecutor, John D. O'Connor, who can be presumed to know a thing or two about the Deep State:

John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the book, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism.

I remain totally unconvinced by O'Connor. Which is to say, I continue to believe that Barr's "exculpation" of the CIA is false and a basic betrayal of the nation. Equal justice will not flow from covering up the CIA's role in the Russia Hoax and everything to do with the last two decades of Deep State rule.

Obviously, O'Connor is correct in his contention that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey played a central role in the Clinton/Obama coverups and the attempted coup against Trump. However, O'Connor's attempt to portray the entire Russia Hoax operation as an FBI operation because most of the main players were assets of the FBI is misguided. Every single one of the people under consideration:

Joseph Mifsud

Stefan Halper

Christopher Steele

Nellie Ohr

Alexander Downer

Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson

fit the profile of CIA assets. They move in circles that are far too rarefied for the FBI--diplomatic officials, high level executive branch officials, persons with obvious connections to foreign intelligence services rather than counterintelligence services. My operative assumption has always been that, to the extent that some of these people cooperated with the FBI they did it on loan from the CIA. And that means that the CIA knew why the FBI needed their services.

Tying Up Loose Russia Hoax Ends?

Lately, the last week or so, it has almost seemed as if the Russia Hoax could disappear from public view, what with all the election related news and--especially--the mind boggling revelations of the Biden Inc. scandal. Nevertheless, I remain confident that the Russia Hoax will come back to take center stage. In fact, some of the latest revelations suggest that Durham may be wrapping the case up, tying up some loose ends in preparation for indictments.

For example, we heard for months about Durham's focus on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the "assessment" that came out in early January, 2017, that set the stage for the continuation of the Russia Hoax and the justification for the Mueller Witchhunt. We've heard repeatedly that veteran CIA analysts believed that there was good reason to question the "assessment" that Putin was backing Trump over Hillary Clinton. And yet, we were told, CIA Director John Brennan ignored his own analysts to and combined with disgraced former FBI Director James Comey to frame a narrative that dominated much of President Trump's first term.

In an article yesterday that was co-authored by John Solomon and Lee Smith--two investigative journalists who have been on this case from the beginning--we learn interesting new information that sheds light on the origins of the entire Russia Hoax narrative. It also explains the reservations that the CIA analysts expressed. Perhaps most importantly, the new documentation shows that Mueller hid this information from public view, by excluding important documents in his possession from his enormous final dossier. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's evidence that Mueller perpetrated a fraud by hiding this evidence:

MULTIPLE UPDATES: Ratcliffe Releases Docs Showing The Russia Hoax Was Approved By Hillary--And Was A Known Hoax

We recently saw the letter from DNI John Ratcliffe to Lindsey Graham in which Ratcliffe described handwritten notes of John Brennan. Those notes memorialized Brennan meeting personally with Obama, Susan Rice, James Clapper, and Denis McDonough and informing them that it appeared that "the Russians" were aware that Hillary Clinton was ginning up a Russia Hoax operation against Donald Trump to distract attention from her email scandal. Today the original notes were released, along with a CIA memo to disgraced former FBI Director James Comey--with attention to Peter Strzok. The CIA memo documents the CIA's referral of the matter described in Brennan's notes to the FBI--something that Comey denied all knowledge of in his recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here are Brennan's notes, which are partially redacted. Note that one of the redactions appears to provide the identities of persons--presumably Russians?--involved in a discussion of Hillary's plans to smear Trump:

Here's a transcript of the notes, provided by Sean Davis at The Federalist (DNI Declassifies Handwritten Notes From John Brennan, 2016 CIA Referral On Clinton Campaign’s Collusion Operation):

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activites from [REDACTED]. Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton–on 26 July–of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

 

Two things:

UPDATED: John Ratcliffe Goes NUCLEAR!

Sullivan and Gleeson aren't news and they're not even comedy any more.

OTOH, this is NEWS, via Sean Davis. Handwritten notes of John Brennan--Brennan briefed Obama on Russia's knowledge that Hillary was cooking up a Russia Hoax against Trump! Obama and "other senior intelligence officials." Let's see. Jim Comey, Strzok, Clapper, Susie Rice, and ... who else?

Hey, looks like the Russians knew a thing or two--in any event, they turned out to be right, and the Russia Hoax turned out to be ... a hoax!

Sperry: Brennan 'Juiced' The ICA For Political Purposes

Did you ever doubt that John Brennan juiced the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) for political--i.e., anti-Trump--purposes? Me neither.

But just in case you had any doubts, Paul Sperry is here to tell you that it's true--and he has anonymous sources to confirm that it's true: Secret Report: How CIA's Brennan Overruled Dissenting Analysts Who Concluded Russia Favored Hillary.

So, this article isn't exactly man-bites-dog stuff. On the other hand, Sperry adds a fair amount of interesting detail. For example, he provides names for some of the handful of Brennan's collaborators in writing the ICA. The significance of that is that, as we learn, Brennan only had a handful of collaborators--the other analysts who would ordinarily have participated in the full ICA process were essentially shut out when it came to writing the ICA. So, if you know the names of just a handful then you pretty much know most of Brennan's team. And, anyway, Brennan himself did the final edit.

All that is interesting and useful knowledge, even if most of it isn't really new. The potentially important portion of the article is quite brief. Sperry asserts that John Durham remains focused on the ICA and is using a secret House report that debunks the ICA as a "road map" for his investigation:

Another Look At John Brennan's Task Force

While we're waiting for some action in Durham's Russia Hoax investigation, it may be useful to review this business of John Brennan's anti-Trump "task force." The story has been getting some play lately, thanks to Paul Sperry's recent claim that it's "developing":

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_  

DEVELOPING: Investigators have learned that Obama CIA Director John Brennan ran a secret task force out of Langley with its own separate budget to investigate Trump campaign and alleged ties to Russia. Task force set up before FBI officially launched its own probe on 07/31/16.  

10:17 PM · Sep 7, 2020

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson echoed those ideas, pointing out that a CIA task force would not have been "appropriate or lawful."

At the time--which was about a week ago--I responded, in somewhat scatterfire fashion:

I'm skeptical of this tweet--the essential content of which is not new--for several reasons. 

The first is that, as stated, the whole idea of a CIA task force targeting a US Person residing within the US for ties to a foreign country is too transparently illegal to be probable. 

... 

This interagency task force would have simply been each agency contributing its supposed knowledge re Russian targeting of the 2016 election, and possibly Brennan's official cover for egging the FBI on to take its own official action: opening investigations as only the FBI can do. 

... 

My guess, however, is that it wasn't a specifically "Trump" TF but instead a "Russian meddling task force" with other agencies--mostly FBI--involved to cover over any illegality. The FBI could be said to be handling domestic aspects.

Neither Sperry nor Johnson are, to my knowledge, lawyers, so they failed to draw the proper distinctions. As a result, Sperry's readers were left with the impression that the "task force" was a CIA entity. Again, for Brennan to have set up a CIA task force focused on a US citizen was "too transparently illegal to be probable." The FBI would never have stood for CIA trespassing and Brennan is too smart to get caught out in something so clearly illegal.

Yesterday afternoon commenter Brad Crawford brought a twitter thread by Fool Nelson to my attention. I tend to be a bit cautious with some of the speculation that goes on at this site, but I found this thread to be incisive. By examining the material that Fool Nelson brings together we can come to a better understanding of Brennan's role in the Russia Hoax, as well as an understanding of some of the issues Durham may be looking at with regard to the CIA.

Did Brennan Run An Anti-Trump Task Force?

For lack of news, Paul Sperry's recent tweet has caused a minor stir on the conservative interwebs:

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_ 

DEVELOPING: Investigators have learned that Obama CIA Director John Brennan ran a secret task force out of Langley with its own separate budget to investigate Trump campaign and alleged ties to Russia. Task force set up before FBI officially launched its own probe on 07/31/16. 

10:17 PM · Sep 7, 2020

I'm skeptical of this tweet--the essential content of which is not new--for several reasons.

The first is that, as stated, the whole idea of a CIA task force targeting a US Person residing within the US for ties to a foreign country is too transparently illegal to be probable. A separate budget for such a task force would merely document the illegality.

Counterintelligence operations inside the US--which is what we're talking about here--are the province of the FBI. Brennan--who is not natively stupid, whatever else you may think of him--would understand the risks and would certainly come up with a workaround. That's not to say that Brennan wasn't involved. It's just that the Langley "task force ... with its own separate budget" is too simple. It's too good to be true, because its discovery would make the coup so easy to prove in the big picture conspiracy sense, but like most things that are too good to be true it most likely isn't.

In response to DJL this morning, I wrote:

Yes. They're probably working off a 2017 article in The Guardian. IMO there are two things--possibly three--at work there: the two, the campaign against Flynn, and Brennan spreading the dossier in DC. The other possibility, the Alfa Bank hoax. I believe that that much is true, but with The Guardian you have to be careful.

So, to repeat, what I think drives this narrative is the notorious article by Luke Harding in The Guardian, dating back to April, 2017 (h/t SWC for the reminder). I do wonder whether this article was not intended as a cover for what was really going on--the centrality of the Steele "dossier" to the entire Russia Hoax. That will be difficult to state with certainty because of redactions in the released documents, but I believe it to be probable:

Ratcliffe's Coming Declassification May Mean No Prosecution Of Brennan

That's the main theme of John Solomon's latest article:

CIA conduct during Russia assessment may be next boomerang in probe of investigators 

DNI hints new declassification coming soon. Some want it to be a congressional complaint to the CIA inspector general questioning the Obama intelligence assessment on Russian intentions.

Back in May I quoted a 25 year national security specialist, Fred Fleitz:

... CIA has been concealing a House Intelligence report that provides evidence that Putin and Russia wanted Hillary to win. This evidence was considered "strong" by CIA analysts but was excluded from the ICA over their objections by John Brennan. "Weak" evidence that maybe Russia wanted Trump to win was included by Brennan over the objections of the same CIA analysts.

This is what Solomon is talking about, and it boils down to what Bill Barr has said about prosecutions and wrongdoing: Not every abuse of power is a crime.

Clearly there are those--including myself--who strongly believe that Brennan abused his power outrageously. However, if Solomon is right, then it could mean that Brennan is out of the woods:

If Ratcliffe declassifies the House intelligence panel's complaint to the CIA inspector general, it will signal that Durham does not believe the release would impact any prosecution and could mean no charges are forthcoming concerning the assessment. 

But the release of the report would be significant nonetheless, since both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee have sided with Brennan and agreed Russia was trying to help Trump win. 

The belated emergence of evidence — such as dissenting analysts — that calls into question a three-year-old finding would be jarring, especially if it occurred before the election.

The timing of this declassification is probably tied to Durham's interview of Brennan. Presumably Durham now has a fixed account from Brennan for what Brennan did. If, as Joe diGenova recently maintained, Brennan will be required to testify against Comey, this could play a role.

DiGenova: Brennan A Witness Against Comey?

Joe diGenova gave a very interesting interview this past Monday on WMAL. In the interview--for which I've transcribed most of his remarks--he touches on a number of important points, some of which we haven't heard much about and some of which also contradict the conventional wisdom:

1. Joe argues strongly that Brennan is probably in the clear--unless he lied to Durham. But, he also argues, that almost certainly means Brennan will now, willy nilly, be a witness against Comey.

2. Joe also believes that Bill Priestap--who I previously thought may have cooperated with the investigation--is now in the crosshairs, because it was Priestap who lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. The fact that Priestap has refused to testify voluntarily seems to confirm this.

3. Joe further believes that John Carlin, who presented false certifications to the FISC, is also a target. I have to wonder whether that is just the tip of the DoJ iceberg in this Durham investigation.

4. Finally, Joe offers his view on the Chris Wray situation, arguing that Trump can't afford to fire Wray--much as he undoubtedly wants to. I think his position on this is pretty sound. It's one thing for the Dems to invent one hoax issue after another, all of which are pretty transparently bogus  to the bulk of the public. It's another thing for Trump to initiate a brouhaha when he's trying to focus on his positive achievements. That's been my position in the past--that Wray is safe through the election--and it still seems the best bet. After the election, all bets are off.

Was Brennan Put In A Perjury Trap?

The answer, in my understanding, is: No, not strictly speaking.

Earlier today I wrote a number of things along the lines that just because Brennan may have been told that he wasn't a target or a subject but was being interviewed as a witness, that doesn't mean he's "out of the woods". For example:

All that said, Brennan is clearly not out of the woods yet. As others have noted, there's only one reason why Durham waited so long before interviewing Brennan--because he was trying to learn as much about Brennan's Russia Hoax related activities as possible before talking to him. And that means Brennan was right up at the top of the list of persons of interest.

In other words, if Brennan was interviewed as a witness for eight hours, that was a whole lotta witnessing going on. Durham must have had a lotta, lotta questions for Brennan as a witness.

Now, Shipwreckedcrew has a new article up about the circumstances surrounding the Brennan interview, and the statements that were made afterwards by Brennan's spokesman: John Brennan Was Put in a Perjury Trap Yesterday — A Completely Legitimate One. The article is well worth your time to read, because in it SWC explains things like:

Shipwreckedcrew Goes Toe To Toe With Sundance

This Twitter matchup has been going on for a week or so, off and on, and has been pretty entertaining as SWC scores easy points against a wildly flailing sundance. It continues today, including two exchanges that are good for us, as we try to understand what's going on with John Brennan's interview yesterday with John Durham. First let's look at the Twitter exchanges. First:

@TheLastRefuge2 

The ICA is a false political document used as the basis for underlying Trump-Russia expansion.  However, by defining his DOJ rules of politics Barr has set up the ICA to be defined as a "political document"  and precluded criminal accountability for its content. twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2…

@shipwreckedcrew 

Please explain the mechanism for making someone "criminally accountable" for the "content" of the ICA. 

You continue to talk in terms that have no meaning in the real world. 

Accountability is found in the Title 18.  What crime do you think was involved in producing the ICA?

Yes, sundance has a point: The ICA IS a false political document. But few things in life are that simple. What do we know about it's production? Well, we know from what has been released that the same CIA analysts who foolishly bought into some of the key Russia Hoax narratives to come to their conclusion also pushed back strongly against the FBI's insistence on including the "dossier"--which was eventually incorporated as an "annex" to the ICA. So it looks like those analysts were duped but were more or less honorable dupes--probably politically biased but not in a criminal way. Those who declined to examine the "Russian hacking" evidence and who put out the stories about Russian bots and so forth are more responsible, but we're still left with the question of evidence and intent.

Brennan, on the other hand, cleverly played the peacemaker in the ICA production process, telling his analysts, 'Look, Comey is insisting so we'll keep the peace and let the FBI have an annex.' Clever. Brennan looks to his analysts like he's on their side, but to the FBI he looks like he's giving them what they want. And that way Brennan slips out of any real responsibility--he presents himself as having no dog in the fight, as someone who just wants to keep each side happy. Meanwhile, he gets what he wants--legitimation of the dossier in a political sense, injecting it into the public debate, despite the caveats of his analysts.

Brennan's Interview

Disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed for 8 hours at CIA Headquarters today. The interview was led by USA John Durham. We're told by Brennan's team:

Brennan was informed by Mr. Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review.

Of course, if as a witness Brennan attempts to obstruct Durham's investigation ...

Brennan also confirmed, indirectly, that Durham remains focused on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA):

About That Brennan Interview

Shipwreckedcrew has an opinion. You'll recall that I said that I can't see what benefit there would be for Brennan in such an interview. Shipwrecked goes into the typical situation and applies it to Brennan. Makes sense to me:

The news about a pending "Interview" with Brennan is typical of a situation where you "offer" a target the opportunity to "explain" some things.  Most of the time the defense lawyer doesn't agree to the interview.  But Brennan has an "appearance" problem if he was to refuse. 

I don't expect much will come of it, and nothing prevents his attorney from directing him to not answer certain questions posed. IMO, given that I think Brennan is the lead suspect at the "macro" level, I think this signals Durham is done. Brennan's info won't change anything.

In other words, the risks involved in such an interview (getting into deeper trouble) simply outweigh possible benefits (persuading the prosecutor to leave you alone) in most cases.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean Durham has decided to charge Brennan, although it certainly appears Shipwrecked leans in that direction. I would very much like to see that, too. However, it remains possible that an interview could be offered just to wrap things up. The bottom line is, we can't read too much into this situation.

What To Take From The Senate's ICA Report

Yesterday during the Dem House's theater of the absurd involving AG Bill Barr, the Senate Intel Committee released a heavily redacted version of their report on the origination of the notorious Obama administration Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian "meddling" in US elections. What this report focuses on is the inclusion of the Steele "dossier" as "Annex A" to the ICA.

I think we can take this report as a starting point for John Durham's investigation--at least as regards the ICA and its relevance to the rest of the Russia Hoax and Mueller witchhunt. We've heard at regular intervals that Durham is very much focused on the ICA, that he has been busily interviewing all the analysts involved, and--most pointedly--that he has been gathering all communications between disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and John Brennan. Naturally, the new revelations surrounding the FBI's three-day interview of Christopher Steele's notional "Primary Subsource", Igor Danchenko, make anything we can glean from this report of special interest.

Here's what struck me in reading even this heavily redacted version. You can assess my impressions while reading the excerpts I provide, below.

1. It's clear that the ICA was special ordered from the highest levels. Obama ordered it, but one assumes that there had to have been high level discussions before the decision was made. Those discussions probably involved both the Obama camp as well as the Clinton camp. After all, the Steele "dossier" was Clinton property--they had contracted for it, paid for it, and had already been putting it to use by the time the ICA was written. Getting it into the ICA, mainstreaming it as somehow an intel product rather than a political campaign product, was a big deal. And that was true no matter what caveats CIA analysts may have added.

2. Despite his testimony to the Senate, it seems clear that Comey was the driving force behind getting the dossier into the ICA. Certainly that comes across as the CIA's  understanding of the dynamics. There are hints that the FBI's Bill Priestap--its top CI official--wasn't totally committed, but Comey and disgraced former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe come across as determined. The question, then, is: Was Comey acting strictly on his own, or was he colluding with political operatives, whether from the Obama or Clinton camps, or both? Durham has surely been exploring that angle.

3. John Brennan comes across as rather clever in pointing the finger at Comey in his Senate testimony. This explains why Durham was so eager to get his hands on communications between Comey and Brennan, rather than having to rely on their testimony. What seems clear to me is that if Brennan had insisted, had really gone to the mat in support of the CIA analysts, the dossier could have been excluded from the ICA. Brennan was positioning himself.

4. While the ICA was presented as the assessment of the Intel Community as a whole, it's more clear than ever from this report that the matter of the dossier was strictly between the FBI and CIA--no other agency was truly involved--and Brennan positioned the FBI to shoulder any responsibility.

5. While the CIA analysts may not have been aware of the political provenance of the dossier material, the people at the FBI pushing for its inclusion in the ICA most certainly were fully aware that this was Clinton campaign material. They were also aware of just how unreliable it probably was and the FBI's failure to vet the material was raised insistently by the CIA analysts. Not only was this political provenance concealed from anyone reading the ICA as well as from the CIA analysts, but the fact that the FBI made no attempt to amend or revise the ICA after the Danchenko interview--just three weeks after the ICA came out--is damning evidence of Comey's conspiratorial intent against the president.

Now, here's the major portion of the redacted version of the report. What I've done is to insert an asterisk "*" to indicate redactions in the selected text. My own insertions are in brackets.

Annex A

There's been a fair amount of comment regarding the soon to be famous "Annex A" to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The ICA, of course, was the brainchild of the Intel Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Released in the first week of January, 2017, it sought to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration before Trump was even inaugurated by claiming that the Intel Community had "high confidence" that Russia had tried to help Trump get elected.

The whole thing was nonsense, of course, and now we're told that there is documentary evidence that IC analysts pushed back against the official conclusions of the ICA. The official conclusion was that the Russians wanted Trump elected, but the analysts apparently put in writing that the evidence that claimed to support that conclusion was actually very weak. Instead, the analysts pointed out, the evidence that the Russians wanted Hillary to win was quite strong. That pushback was suppressed by the IC, but has been dug out by the Barr/Durham investigation. We have never missed an opportunity to stress that the ICA is at the very heart of the Big Picture conspiracy case that Durham is building.

Yesterday, as one of his first official acts as DNI, John Ratcliffe forwarded to Senators Grassley and Johnson a newly declassified version of Annex A. It's quite brief--not even a page and a half. All it is is a summary of the fabrications that Chris Steele ginned up for the Clinton campaign as contractor for the Clinton oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. Steele then also purveyed these falsehoods to the FBI, the Fake News Media, and various politicians and their operatives. As the Horowitz Report was at pains to point out, the FBI was fully aware--from the get go, in July, 2016--of the political provenance of the Steele "dossier," as it came to be known. The fact that this material was, in all essentials, fiction was also known by the FBI when Peter Strzok helped put together the summary of the "dossier" that was appended to the ICA--Annex A.

None of this should be news to regular readers. Bill Barr and John Durham are smart guys, and they've been focused on the ICA all along. The reason is simple. If the ICA was a knowingly fraudulent production that put forth conclusions favored by the IC Triumvirate, but disputed by the analysts themselves, then we have a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to defraud the US Government of the honest services of the Intel Community, because if the ICA had been the product of honest services it would have incorporated the views of the analysts who were fraudulently claimed to have reached the official conclusions. By colluding to falsify the true views of the analysts, the IC Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to defraud the US Government of their honest services. The aim of their conspiracy, of course, was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election.

Grenell Succinctly Explains Where Barr/Durham Is Headed

We've heard many times that the Barr/Durham investigation is closely examining the process behind the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA was foisted on a credulous nation by disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan and his Deep State and Media allies, and has served to perpetuate the myth of "Russian meddling" on behalf of Trump.

Per TGP and CTH, Grenell has appeared on The Rubin Report. Here is, IMO, the most important thing he had to say:

Grenell: ... 

And the current intelligence community believes there are a couple of bad apples that they got to get out there and that they were manipulated.  And I will say this – there were red flags early on in the Russia investigation from a variety of agencies and some people made those red flags and those comments from people coming forward, saying ‘this Russian stuff is not true’, they classified that information and pushed it away. 

I’ve seen that information and I’ve called for it to be declassified. It’s a process that’s ongoing, it takes time.  I wasn’t there long enough to do it.  But there are instances where red flags were raised very early on in certain agencies and I’ve requested that information to come out and I hope that it will.”

You can go to the bank with this--Barr and Durham have seen the same information, and--since Barr has full authority to declassify--when the time comes we will see it, too.

To be clear, what Grenell is saying is this: During the process of fabricating the ICA, intel analysts came forward and expressed--in writing--that "this Russian stuff [being inserted into the ICA] is not true." Brennan and the other corrupt actors classified those objections to keep it hidden. A bit like Susan Rice classifying her email-to-self to prevent it from being seen.

What Grenell is describing is powerful evidence of intent to perpetrate the Big Picture Conspiracy. Thus the desperate actions we see.

Grennell's Final Declassifications

FoxNews has a story out about formerly Acting DNI Grennell's final declassifications--Grenell declassifies slew of Russia probe files, as Ratcliffe takes helm as DNI. It will now be up to new DNI John Ratcliffe to decide which of the newly declassified documents will be made public. Of course the story leads with what, to my mind, will end up being a non-story--the call transcripts of Kislyak and Flynn. However there is mention of a document that is undoubtedly near the heart of the Durham investigation. It has to do with "manipulation of intelligence," which undoubtedly concerns John Brennan's "shaping" of the ICA, which was the basis for all subsequent coup and fake impeachment efforts. In that case, it's possible that Ratcliffe--undoubtedly in consultation with Barr/Durham--will withhold that document for the time being. As a former USA himself, Ratcliffe will fully understand whatever the dynamics are in that decision:

The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016, during the presidential transition period. Grenell said publicly last week that he was in the process of declassifying those files, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked that he do so. 

Fox News has learned that the declassification review of those transcripts is now complete, and it will be left up to Ratcliffe on whether to release them publicly. 

Fox News has learned that Grenell also completed the declassification review of other documents related to the origins of the Russia probe — including one that a senior intelligence official told Fox News was “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.” 

The official could not provide further details on that newly declassified document, but said that it will also be up to Ratcliffe to decide whether to make it public.

Speaking with Tucker Carlson, FoxNews' Ed Henry focused on the documentation regarding the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), stating that, if some of the other newly declassified documents are released, "it could get sticky for John Brennan in particular, because of some of the other info":

DiGenova On The Flynn/Kislyak Call

Appearing on the Howie Carr show this week, Joe diGenova weighed in on the non-unmasking of Michael Flynn with regard to the famous Flynn/Kislyak call. DiGenova comes down on the side of those who say that the the monitoring of the call was not done by traditional FISA means as I've described them--picking Flynn up on the FISA for the Russian embassy. You can get a good link here, with the relevant portion near the end. Here's a word for word transcript of what Joe says:

I think it's going to become pretty clear that Michael Flynn was NOT unmasked but was rather the subject of a separate intelligence electronic surveillance by a foreign intelligence service at the request of John Brennan. Most likely the United Kingdom GCHQ, which is their NSA. When you look at the timeline in all the of the unmaskings of Flynn, those were done within a timeline that shows that the Kislyak conversation was not conducted in the United States. The Kislyak conversation was when Flynn was in the Dominican Republic and Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd. And so that means that in order for them to be wiretapped and have their calls intercepted that had to be done by a foreign power. And if you do that at the request of the United States, and you know that a US person is your target, and not Kislyak, that is a crime. That is a violation of federal law. You cannot wiretap an American citizen overseas under circumstances like that.

I want this on the record so that, if I turn out to be wrong, anyone who wants to rub my nose in it will have a good point of reference. Sitting here right now I see many problems with what Joe says.

First, what Joe has right--and I don't mean to sound flippant when I say that. He's right that to have targeted Flynn while he was overseas (in the Dominican Republic) in the absence of a FISA order on Flynn would have been illegal.

The problems start with the statement that "Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd." The Russian Orthodox Christmas is NOT on January 2nd. The Russian Orthodox Christmas is actually on January 7th--about nine days after the phone call, which was on December 29th.

The Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC--Predication And The Way Forward

Late yesterday a redacted version of the Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC was released to Judicial Watch. Hopefully a cleaner version will be out in the not too distant future. I understand that AG Barr is playing all of this close to the vest as John Durham prepares his case, but the redaction of information that We The People really should have access to is offensive. After all, we all know what the redactions are about: The identity of foreign governments and their operatives--and some of our own operatives--who colluded in a coup attempt against the established government of the United States. Democracy dies in darkness, as the WaPo has taken to saying, and the identities of all governments and operatives who conspired against our constitutional order need to be made known.

That said, the Opening EC--a Peter Strzok production--is as absurd as expected. Here's the gist of it, actually a very lightly edited paraphrase. It really is as threadbare in terms of predication as this summary indicates:

The [Redacted - but presumed to be Australian] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopoulos. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted - presumed London] so the [Redacted - presumed to be Alexander Downer] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted] attending at least one of the meetings.

Note what's being said there. Against all odds, this Australian/US operative who claimed to be seeking "prominent members of the Trump campaign" came up with George Papadopoulos. (It tells you something about our Embassy/CIA staff that they were unable to identify the correct spelling of such a common Greek name.) We're supposed to believe that after active consideration of the possible candidates in the Trump campaign one of the top Australian diplomats decide to spend his time cultivating the likes of George Papadopoulos. Not only that, but it's clear from a quick read between the lines that Papadopoulos was not a target of opportunity--he had to be "located". IOW, Downer, or his US handlers, went looking for Papadopoulos, a sort of Quest for the Ideal Fallguy.

Today's Must Read: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker has a terrific summary of J. E. Dyer's most recent article. Here's a link to the original Dyer article, which is lengthy. I had considered doing a post on it, but quickly realized it'd be difficult cutting much: Beyond Biden, Brennan, and Clapper: How Grenell’s satchel tells us this is on the right track.

Lifson's summary offers a more gradual entry into the full article--I recommend both: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel are the key to the biggest political scandal in US history.

To give you a taste, here are two Adam Housely tweets that Dyer quotes:

Adam Housley
@adamhousley 

Ooooooh brother. Massive surveillance...that’s what’s been found. “MASSIVE” is the way it was sent to me. 

10:09 PM · May 11, 2020

Adam Housley
@adamhousley 

As I’m told the list Grenell brought over is much larger than anything involving Flynn. “The exact tasking flow is hard to discern because the stuff was flying everywhere.” 

1:54 PM · May 12, 2020

BONUS SECOND MUST READ:

WaPo's new mantra is Just Don't Report